In the item we ran yesterday about GNOME and the GNU Project, one aspect got snowed under a little bit. It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false, and even though the claim wasn't ours, I did repeat it, and therefore, should correct it too. I also need to offer apologies for not framing the opening of the article clear enough - had I framed it better, a lot of pointless discussion and name-calling could've been avoided.

It turns out a claim made in the iTWire article about the role a blog post by Miguel De Icaza was false.

It wasn't false........nor was it true. All we know is that there had been some complaints about the content of some blog posts on Planet Gnome, but we don't know which specific blog posts. There might well have been some complaints about that post since it has zilch to do with Gnome, but we don't know since the nature of the complaints was never revealed.

Anyone who has tried to read Planet Gnome over time knows that this was long overdue.

I should've made it clear in the teaser that I wanted to talk about RMS and the FSF...

Why would it need to be about RMS and the FSF? The discussion was squarely about Gnome's place as a FSF project, despite the avenue that you chose to go down.

I wanted to talk about how I feel about RMS and the FSF...

Why? That has absolutely nothing to do with the article or the e-mail thread in question. Your inane ramblings and opinions are not germane to the events in discussion.

...and not about GNOME and the GNU Project.

Why not?

As a result, a lot of people probably thought that the GNOME-GNU issue was the main topic of the thread, and this is simply not the case.

It was the main topic of discussion, or at least it should have been. The topic of discussion was a post in a long thread proposing a split from Gnome and the GNU for various reasons discussed. I certainly didn't misread that at all. I certainly read most of that thread.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion, and if the article did any damage anywhere (which I doubt, I have no illusions about OSNews' limited sphere of influence), I want to apologise for that.

Who gives a f--k? The article and the main avenue of discussion was bang on and it was based on a public mailing list discussion. Someone hasn't been badgering you over this have they Thom?

Grow some cajones please and stop telling me or anyone else what they did or didn't read. I do RTFAs and I did gander down the e-mail thread in more than enough detail.